Mr. Madison moved that the words "nor lay imposts or
duties on imports" be transferred from art: XIII where
the consent of the Genl. Legislature may license the act--into
art. XII which will make the prohibition on the States
absolute. He observed that as the States interested in this
power by which they could tax the imports of their neighbours
passing thro' their markets, were a majority, they
could give the consent of the Legislature, to the injury of
N. Jersey, N. Carolina &c--

Mr. Williamson 2ded. the motion

Mr. Sherman thought the power might safely be left to
the Legislature of the U. States.

Col: Mason, observed that particular States might wish
to encourage by impost duties certain manufactures for
which they enjoy natural advantages, as Virginia, the manufacture
of Hemp &c.

Mr. Madison-- The encouragement of Manufacture in
that mode requires duties not only on imports directly
from foreign Countries, but from the other States in the
Union, which would revive all the mischiefs experienced
from the want of a Genl. Government over commerce.

Mr. Sherman moved to add, after the word "exports"--the
words "nor with such consent but for the use of the
U. S."--so as to carry the proceeds of all State duties on
imports & exports, into the common Treasury.

Mr. Madison liked the motion as preventing all State imposts--but
lamented the complexity we were giving to the
commercial system.

Mr. Govr. Morris thought the regulation necessary to
prevent the Atlantic States from endeavouring to tax the
Western States--& promote their interest by opposing the
navigation of the Mississippi which would drive the Western
people into the arms of G. Britain.

Mr. Clymer thought the encouragement of the Western
Country was suicide on the old States-- If the States have
such different interests that they can not be left to regulate
their own manufactures without encountering the interests
of other States, it is a proof that they are not fit to compose
one nation.

[Volume 3, Page 475]

Mr. King was afraid that the regulation moved by Mr.
Sherman would too much interfere with a policy of States
respecting their manufactures, which may be necessary.
Revenue he reminded the House was the object of the
general Legislature.

XIII amended so [th]at all duties laid by a State shall
accrue to the use of the U. S.

[2:588; Madison, 12 Sept.]

The Clause relating to exports being reconsidered, at
the instance of Col: Mason, Who urged that the restriction
on the States would prevent the incidental duties necessary
for the inspection & safe-keeping of their produce, and be
ruinous to the Staple States, as he called the five Southern
States, he moved as follows--"provided nothing herein
contained shall be construed to restrain any State from
laying duties upon exports for the sole purpose of defraying
the Charges of inspecting, packing, storing and indemnifying
the losses, in keeping the commodities in the care
of public officers, before exportation," In answer to a remark
which he anticipated, to wit, that the States could
provide for these expences, by a tax in some other way, he
stated the inconveniency of requiring the Planters to pay a
tax before the actual delivery for exportation.

Mr. Madison 2ded the motion-- It would at least be
harmless; and might have the good effect of restraining
the States to bona fide duties for the purpose, as well as of
authorizing explicitly such duties; tho' perhaps the best
guard against an abuse of the power of the States on this
subject, was the right in the Genl. Government to regulate
trade between State & State.

Mr Govr Morris saw no objection to the motion. He did
not consider the dollar per Hhd laid on Tobo in Virga. as
a duty on exportation, as no drawback would be allowed
on Tobo. taken out of the Warehouse for internal consumption,

Mr. Dayton was afraid the proviso wd. enable Pennsylva.
to tax N. Jersey under the idea of Inspection duties of
which Pena. would Judge.

Mr. Gorham & Mr. Langdon, though there would be no
security if the proviso shd. be agreed to, for the States exporting
thro' other States, agst. oppressions of the latter.
How was redress to be obtained in case duties should be
laid beyond the purpose expressed?

Mr. Madison-- There will be the same security as in
other cases-- The jurisdiction of the supreme Court must
be the source of redress. So far only had provision been
made by the plan agst. injurious acts of the States. His own
opinion was, that this was insufficient,-- A negative on the
State laws alone. could meet all the shapes which these
could assume. But this had been overruled.

Mr. Fitzimons. Incidental duties on Tobo. & flour. never
have been & never can be considered as duties on exports--

Mr. Dickinson. Nothing will save States in the situation
of N. Hampshire N Jersey Delaware &c. from being oppressed
by their Neighbors, but requiring the assent of
Congs to inspection duties, He moved that this assent shd
accordingly be required

Mr. Butler 2ded the motion.

[2:624; Madison, 15 Sept.]

Art. 1. sect. 10. (paragraph) 2) "No State shall, without
the consent of Congress lay imposts or duties on imports
or exports; nor with such consent, but to the use of the
Treasury of the U. States"--

In consequence of the proviso moved by Col: Mason:
and agreed to on the 13 Sepr, this part of the section
was laid aside in favor of the following substitute viz. "No
State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any imposts
or duties on imports or exports, except what may be
absolutely necessary for executing its Inspection laws; and
the nett produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any
State on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the
Treasury of the U-- S--; and all such laws shall be subject
to the revision and controul of the Congress"

On a motion to strike out the last part "and all such laws
shall be subject to the revision and controul of the Congress"
it passed in the Negative.